Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (definition, example, statutory reference, practice note, related terms) and disclosing that the source is a curated 111-term glossary, which implies coverage limits. It does not say what happens for a term outside the glossary.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler: scope and returned content first, then the triggering use case and examples. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing what a definition returns and bounding the source glossary. The only gap is behavior for unknown/out-of-glossary terms, which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single, well-documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples of valid terms overlap with the schema's own examples rather than adding new syntax or format guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Defines an Indian legal term') plus the exact source scope: a curated glossary of 111 terms across eight named practice areas. An agent can immediately separate this glossarial lookup from sibling tools like lookup_bare_act_section, search_bare_acts or find_rbi_nbfc_direction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('Use when the user asks what a legal term or abbreviation means') with concrete examples (NPA, CIRP, Recovery Certificate, Garnishee Order). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, e.g. when to prefer a bare-act section lookup instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.